get_electricity_summary

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations, notably that the date range is inclusive ('含首尾') and that the summary includes balance and cumulative usage. This helps the agent understand the tool's exact scope without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the main action and lists the key data points. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Complexity is low: two simple date parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema are present. The description adds the important inclusive-endpoint behavior and the summary's contents. It is slightly incomplete only in lacking explicit parameter format guidance and sibling differentiation, but the tool remains invocable correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only type/required info with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the two parameters define a date range and that both endpoints are inclusive, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not specify date formats, constraints, or the relationship between the cumulative usage and the date range.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a specific verb ('读取' / read) and a clear resource: an electricity summary covering date-range usage, bill, cumulative usage, and current balance. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like get_daily_energy, get_balance, and get_lifetime_energy, though it does not explicitly name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied by '读取日期范围...' — use it when a date-range electricity summary is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over get_balance or get_lifetime_energy, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.